View Poll Results: Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

Voters
158. You may not vote on this poll
  • Leave Before - Leave Now

    35 22.15%
  • Leave Before - Remain Now

    8 5.06%
  • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now

    2 1.27%
  • Remain Before - Remain Now

    88 55.70%
  • Remain Before - Leave Now

    6 3.80%
  • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now

    0 0%
  • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now

    3 1.90%
  • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now

    4 2.53%
  • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?

    2 1.27%
  • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding

    10 6.33%
Page 324 of 327 FirstFirst ... 224274314322323324325326 ... LastLast
Results 16,151 to 16,200 of 16331

Thread: Brexit - Enter at Your Own Risk

  1. #16151

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosin View Post
    But they are. We have things they want to buy and sell. Our only goal is getting control back of our own country.

    Every thing else to us comes after this priority.... For us it isn't about making sure Germany can sell us cars or Netherlands can keep selling us it's goods and so on,all those goods which they won't just be able to sell to some different country... All those billions of pounds worth of fresh goods with no customers to buy them..... I am sure all in the eu will be happy for a no Deal to happen. Stop kidding your self, some members of the eu are more worried about a no Deal than we are, might not be all the eu members.. But ultimately the eu does what's best for the bloc and letting it lose billions in trade is not doing what's best for the bloc...
    Yes Mosin the UK holds the cards and the EU will agree to UK demands because it fears a no deal more than the UK - the UK is fearless because sovereignty trumps all - never mind that the UK has already agreed to a customs and regulatory border in its own country - one that we were previously told that no unionist could ever countenance or accept

    I look forward to the UK securing permanent equivalence, no extra regulatory checks/paperwork, market access that is superior to other deals in existence without commensurate obligations or restrictions on its sovereignty. The EU is s**tting themselves and don’t want to lose billions in trade. How much do you want to wager that this will happen pal? Name your price.
    Last edited by shurlock; 23-02-2020 at 02:42 PM.

  2. #16152

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Super Weston Mare
    Posts
    12,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan The Flames View Post
    I must be thick because I can't see how you have proved anything there. You said that there won't be a deal beacuse the EU won't be able to agree amongst themselves in order to facilitate some of the UK demands required to do a deal and Shurlock has said that there has always been a danger that the EU won't give in to the UK demands.
    No, that is not what I said.

    I said there were too many fingers in too many pies to agree a deal. I also included the UK in that analogy as the owner of some of those fingers and that, therefore, the UK would not agree to demands, not just the EU.

    However, I'm glad that you recognise that Shurlock has said pretty much the same thing as me, despite his claim that the two opinions are 'diammetrically opposed'. It just took him a year longer to reach the conclusion

  3. #16153

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Little did I know when the thread’s dimmest poster talked about the negotiating difficulties of meeting “the expectations of 27 countries - each with their own different agenda” and some analogy about them having too many fingers in too many pies, he was actually including the UK. Everything my colleagues and I previously and professionally understood about the EU (including the UK) being composed of 28 member states was dead wrong. Turns out the UK was part of the EU27. I learn something new everyday on this place, including how not to cover my tracks and make up a bigger fool of myself

    This literally my final post on the issue as I can positively feel my IQ declining every minute I’m engaging with such disingenuous simpletons.
    Last edited by shurlock; 23-02-2020 at 04:21 PM.

  4. #16154

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    South West France
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mack rill View Post
    Wes why you no listen, The few re-moaners on hear think they know more than the 17 odd million who got off their arses and voted OUT!!! Kleenex must of cut down half of Sherwood Forrest by now to fill their boxes.
    You are only interested in keeping British fish for British fish ****ers, you dirty Skate .

  5. #16155

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Grinding, not spinning up Alpe d'Huez
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    Little did I know when the thread’s dimmest poster talked about the negotiating difficulties of meeting “the expectations of 27 countries - each with their own different agenda” and some analogy about them having too many fingers in too many pies, he was actually including the UK. Everything my colleagues and I previously and professionally understood about the EU (including the UK) being composed of 28 member states was dead wrong. Turns out the UK was part of the EU27. I learn something new everyday on this place, including how not to cover my tracks and make up a bigger fool of myself

    This literally my final post on the issue as I can positively feel my IQ declining every minute I’m engaging with such disingenuous simpletons.
    I am on the same side as you, however, you really do come across as an arrogant s h i t. Oh, and while were at learn how to spell Gao. Goa is in India and not the owner's name

  6. #16156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redkeith View Post
    You are only interested in keeping British fish for British fish ****ers, you dirty Skate .
    No need to worry boy!EU not interested in pony stocksand yes you are right, i do want all joly foreigner fishing boats out of British water.

  7. #16157

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    Yes Mosin the UK holds the cards and the EU will agree to UK demands because it fears a no deal more than the UK - the UK is fearless because sovereignty trumps all - never mind that the UK has already agreed to a customs and regulatory border in its own country - one that we were previously told that no unionist could ever countenance or accept

    I look forward to the UK securing permanent equivalence, no extra regulatory checks/paperwork, market access that is superior to other deals in existence without commensurate obligations or restrictions on its sovereignty. The EU is s**tting themselves and don’t want to lose billions in trade. How much do you want to wager that this will happen pal? Name your price.
    I think that it's about time that you brought yourself up to date with how events have unfolded since the early days of May and Robbins, when claims were made on the basis of circumstances prevailing at that time, and with that incompetent duo of remoaners in charge of the negotiations, ready to accept anything that the EU offered us. It is not only pointless raking over old coals now, it is futile, as the political landscape has altered beyond recognition since May's departure and the arrival of Boris as PM.

    The penny is slowly dropping in the EU that Boris is not May and that Frost is not Robbins. It is no longer a case of constant delays to article 50 to allow time for article 50 to be revoked. We are out. The Implementation Period will not be extended, so it is a clear choice between a FTA or WTO. If there is no FTA by 31st December, then it is WTO. Despite the remoaner bluster about how blase German industry or French agriculture is about which outcome comes to pass at the end of the year, cracks are starting to appear in EU unity. The EU 27 cannot agree about their next period budget, which will be severely depleted without our contribution. The French fishermen are making hysterical demands to include access to our coastal waters in the trade deal. The Irish under Varadkar allowed the EU to weaponise the Irish border, but he is now gone and the Irish are sh*tting themselves at the increased budgetary payments they will need to make for a smaller return of EU grants, as well as the increased plundering of their fish stocks, once the EU's incursion into our waters will be curtailed. Be in no doubt that the German car makers will grow increasingly shrill in their demands towards their government to give us a decent deal, the closer that the deadline becomes.

    Of course a FTA is in the interests of both us and the EU, but the desire in the EU to cut off their nose to spite their face so that other countries don't follow us out of the door is strong, and will probably lead to no deal and WTO. If the EU want a deal, then they had better hurry up and be realistic about what will be acceptable to us both. They need to begin making offers instead of issuing demands, and soon. In the meantime, noises are being made here within the past few days about some beneficial changes on the horizon that we might make. One is that we should invest in our own satellite system, now that the EU have done the dirty to us on the Galileo project. The other proposal is to regenerate depressed industrial areas with the development of several free ports. These types of initiatives combined with the lowering of Corporation Tax and the increased trade around the globe will see us thrive outside of the EU. They on the other hand will struggle to thrive without us and I foresee the whole EU project falling apart within a decade.

  8. #16158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    I think that it's about time that you brought yourself up to date with how events have unfolded since the early days of May and Robbins, when claims were made on the basis of circumstances prevailing at that time, and with that incompetent duo of remoaners in charge of the negotiations, ready to accept anything that the EU offered us. It is not only pointless raking over old coals now, it is futile, as the political landscape has altered beyond recognition since May's departure and the arrival of Boris as PM.

    The penny is slowly dropping in the EU that Boris is not May and that Frost is not Robbins. It is no longer a case of constant delays to article 50 to allow time for article 50 to be revoked. We are out. The Implementation Period will not be extended, so it is a clear choice between a FTA or WTO. If there is no FTA by 31st December, then it is WTO. Despite the remoaner bluster about how blase German industry or French agriculture is about which outcome comes to pass at the end of the year, cracks are starting to appear in EU unity. The EU 27 cannot agree about their next period budget, which will be severely depleted without our contribution. The French fishermen are making hysterical demands to include access to our coastal waters in the trade deal. The Irish under Varadkar allowed the EU to weaponise the Irish border, but he is now gone and the Irish are sh*tting themselves at the increased budgetary payments they will need to make for a smaller return of EU grants, as well as the increased plundering of their fish stocks, once the EU's incursion into our waters will be curtailed. Be in no doubt that the German car makers will grow increasingly shrill in their demands towards their government to give us a decent deal, the closer that the deadline becomes.

    Of course a FTA is in the interests of both us and the EU, but the desire in the EU to cut off their nose to spite their face so that other countries don't follow us out of the door is strong, and will probably lead to no deal and WTO. If the EU want a deal, then they had better hurry up and be realistic about what will be acceptable to us both. They need to begin making offers instead of issuing demands, and soon. In the meantime, noises are being made here within the past few days about some beneficial changes on the horizon that we might make. One is that we should invest in our own satellite system, now that the EU have done the dirty to us on the Galileo project. The other proposal is to regenerate depressed industrial areas with the development of several free ports. These types of initiatives combined with the lowering of Corporation Tax and the increased trade around the globe will see us thrive outside of the EU. They on the other hand will struggle to thrive without us and I foresee the whole EU project falling apart within a decade.
    He don't see it, he just can't grasp the fact we ARE leaving... He can't grasp that with or with out a deal we are leaving and this is the uk's stance not the eu's who have always said they prefer a deal and even better for us not to leave.....

    Its simple we want our sovereignty back and no trade deal is going to stop us from getting this. He just can't grasp it..

    Just think about it shurlock, why does the eu nit want a free trading global power on its door step making trade deals freely for the only benefit of its own Kingdom and not chained to eu trade deals which hurts us every time they sign a new one? Just think about it...

  9. #16159

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosin;2805060[QUOTE=Wes Tender View Post
    I think that it's about time that you brought yourself up to date with how events have unfolded since the early days of May and Robbins, when claims were made on the basis of circumstances prevailing at that time, and with that incompetent duo of remoaners in charge of the negotiations, ready to accept anything that the EU offered us. It is not only pointless raking over old coals now, it is futile, as the political landscape has altered beyond recognition since May's departure and the arrival of Boris as PM.

    The penny is slowly dropping in the EU that Boris is not May and that Frost is not Robbins. It is no longer a case of constant delays to article 50 to allow time for article 50 to be revoked. We are out. The Implementation Period will not be extended, so it is a clear choice between a FTA or WTO. If there is no FTA by 31st December, then it is WTO. Despite the remoaner bluster about how blase German industry or French agriculture is about which outcome comes to pass at the end of the year, cracks are starting to appear in EU unity. The EU 27 cannot agree about their next period budget, which will be severely depleted without our contribution. The French fishermen are making hysterical demands to include access to our coastal waters in the trade deal. The Irish under Varadkar allowed the EU to weaponise the Irish border, but he is now gone and the Irish are sh*tting themselves at the increased budgetary payments they will need to make for a smaller return of EU grants, as well as the increased plundering of their fish stocks, once the EU's incursion into our waters will be curtailed. Be in no doubt that the German car makers will grow increasingly shrill in their demands towards their government to give us a decent deal, the closer that the deadline becomes.

    Of course a FTA is in the interests of both us and the EU, but the desire in the EU to cut off their nose to spite their face so that other countries don't follow us out of the door is strong, and will probably lead to no deal and WTO. If the EU want a deal, then they had better hurry up and be realistic about what will be acceptable to us both. They need to begin making offers instead of issuing demands, and soon. In the meantime, noises are being made here within the past few days about some beneficial changes on the horizon that we might make. One is that we should invest in our own satellite system, now that the EU have done the dirty to us on the Galileo project. The other proposal is to regenerate depressed industrial areas with the development of several free ports. These types of initiatives combined with the lowering of Corporation Tax and the increased trade around the globe will see us thrive outside of the EU. They on the other hand will struggle to thrive without us and I foresee the whole EU project falling apart within a decade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosin View Post
    He don't see it, he just can't grasp the fact we ARE leaving... He can't grasp that with or with out a deal we are leaving and this is the uk's stance not the eu's who have always said they prefer a deal and even better for us not to leave.....

    Its simple we want our sovereignty back and no trade deal is going to stop us from getting this. He just can't grasp it..

    Just think about it shurlock, why does the eu nit want a free trading global power on its door step making trade deals freely for the only benefit of its own Kingdom and not chained to eu trade deals which hurts us every time they sign a new one? Just think about it...
    Mosin - we've left the EU. With a deal. Brexit is done pal.

    Now it’s about defining the future relationship. Both of you are bullish about the UK’s negotiating strengths and relative weaknesses of the EU but are curiously quiet when it comes to defining what level of market access the UK can secure. Surely the stronger the UK’s position, the better access it can secure and less it will have to give up?

    Yet all I’ve heard is talk of a Canada-style deal which merely secures zero-tariff, zero-quota access. Given the deficiencies of such a deal for an economy the size and complexity of the UK -see official government analyses on the impact of a Canada-style deal, it suggests that you’re not at all confident in the UK’s bargaining power. Could it be that you’re all talk and no trousers, pure bluster?

    Surely a strong, confident, assertive UK could secure better terms from the EU?

    What happened to Canada +++? As Ivan Rogers pointed out, the pluses were inserted to enable one to say that while the existing FTA with Canada does not really work as a Brexit destination, with the additions, but it’s a much better arrangement. How about permanent equivalence that would be a godsend for high value-added services, like finance -one of the few areas in which the UK has a comparative advantage but barely get a look in usual FTAs. Or Raab’s suggestion of no regulatory checks and nontariff barriers which are the main source of frictions in a modern economy and critical to just-in-time production.

    All these demands -absent from a meek Canada-style deal- are much better economically for the UK. If your confidence is real and you talk a good game (though, Les, surely you can do better than freeports which is a gimmick fed to the bovine masses at brexitcentral and is peashooter compared to the investment needed to close the north-south divide that on some measures is as wide as the one between the old East and West Germany), surely, the UK could secure these benefits with minimal restrictions on its sovereignty. After all, that is the essence of leverage.

    The UK either has leverage or it doesn't and is unable to make it count. Enlighten me lads.
    Last edited by shurlock; 23-02-2020 at 08:57 PM.

  10. Default Boris Johnson piles pressure on EU's Brexit 'time wasters'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guided Missile View Post
    A Washington based conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, published a paper on the best option for the UK, should we leave the EU, focusing on free trade deals. To me, this is the most important thing to get right. (" It's all about the economy, stupid"). In summary, the report states:


    1. The U.S. and the U.K. should negotiate a free trade area based on the principles of national sovereignty and economic freedom.
    2. For both nations, the barrier to this goal is the European Union. Britain cannot negotiate unless it leaves the EU, while the U.S. has wrongly supported the EU over the sovereignty of its member nations.
    3. The U.S. policy of using Britain as its Trojan Horse in the EU is wrong in principle and doomed to failure in practice.
    4. The U.K. must ensure that its referendum on EU membership offers a real choice. There is no reason why the U.K., the world’s sixth-largest economy, cannot negotiate trade arrangements outside the EU.
    5. The benefits of an Anglo–American free trade area would be both economic and political. It would insulate the U.K. from the damaging effects of further EU regulatory interference and signal the two countries’ shared political commitment to their close relationship


    For those interested, the full text is here and I found it exciting and stimulating. Onwards and upwards!

    PS. For any miners out there, ignore the name of the centre publishing the paper....
    Back to the future...
    Boris Johnson is set to kick start trade talks with the US within the next two weeks, amid frustration in Number 10 at EU “time wasting.” The moves on US trade will be seen as an attempt to pile further pressure on the EU whose leaders have questioned whether a trade deal can be agreed before the end of year and are resisting the Prime Minister’s demand for a Canada-style agreement.
    Boris continues to play a blinder....

  11. #16161

    Default

    [QUOTE=shurlock;2805086][QUOTE=Mosin;2805060




    Mosin - we've left the EU. With a deal. Brexit is done pal.

    Now it’s about defining the future relationship. Both of you are bullish about the UK’s negotiating strengths and relative weaknesses of the EU but are curiously quiet when it comes to defining what level of market access the UK can secure. Surely the stronger the UK’s position, the better access it can secure and less it will have to give up?

    Yet all I’ve heard is talk of a Canada-style deal which merely secures zero-tariff, zero-quota access. Given the deficiencies of such a deal for an economy the size and complexity of the UK -see official government analyses on the impact of a Canada-style deal, it suggests that you’re not at all confident in the UK’s bargaining power. Could it be that you’re all talk and no trousers, pure bluster?

    Surely a strong, confident, assertive UK could secure better terms from the EU?

    What happened to Canada +++? As Ivan Rogers pointed out, the pluses were inserted to enable one to say that while the existing FTA with Canada does not really work as a Brexit destination, with the additions, but it’s a much better arrangement. How about permanent equivalence that would be a godsend for high value-added services, like finance -one of the few areas in which the UK has a comparative advantage but barely get a look in usual FTAs. Or Raab’s suggestion of no regulatory checks and nontariff barriers which are the main source of frictions in a modern economy and critical to just-in-time production.

    All these demands -absent from a meek Canada-style deal- are much better economically for the UK. If your confidence is real and you talk a good game (though, Les, surely you can do better than freeports which is a gimmick fed to the bovine masses at brexitcentral and is peashooter compared to the investment needed to close the north-south divide that on some measures is as wide as the one between the old East and West Germany), surely, the UK could secure these benefits with minimal restrictions on its sovereignty. After all, that is the essence of leverage.

    The UK either has leverage or it doesn't and is unable to make it count. Enlighten me lads.[/QUOTE]

    Let me spell it out again

    Uk's main priority is sovereignty.. Not any deal.


    When will you get it into your head.

    A whole world of trade waiting for us, why do we want to handcuff our self's to eu rules and regulations after spend all this time trying to get rid off them...

    Oh OK, let's sign away our sovereignty so we can get tomatoes from Netherlands still.. Lol... It'll be worth it.... Don't even think about potatoes... We want your crown jewels for that... Lmfao.

  12. #16162

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post

    Mosin - we've left the EU. With a deal. Brexit is done pal.

    Now it’s about defining the future relationship. Both of you are bullish about the UK’s negotiating strengths and relative weaknesses of the EU but are curiously quiet when it comes to defining what level of market access the UK can secure. Surely the stronger the UK’s position, the better access it can secure and less it will have to give up?

    Yet all I’ve heard is talk of a Canada-style deal which merely secures zero-tariff, zero-quota access. Given the deficiencies of such a deal for an economy the size and complexity of the UK -see official government analyses on the impact of a Canada-style deal, it suggests that you’re not at all confident in the UK’s bargaining power. Could it be that you’re all talk and no trousers, pure bluster?

    Surely a strong, confident, assertive UK could secure better terms from the EU?

    What happened to Canada +++? As Ivan Rogers pointed out, the pluses were inserted to enable one to say that while the existing FTA with Canada does not really work as a Brexit destination, with the additions, but it’s a much better arrangement. How about permanent equivalence that would be a godsend for high value-added services, like finance -one of the few areas in which the UK has a comparative advantage but barely get a look in usual FTAs. Or Raab’s suggestion of no regulatory checks and nontariff barriers which are the main source of frictions in a modern economy and critical to just-in-time production.

    All these demands -absent from a meek Canada-style deal- are much better economically for the UK. If your confidence is real and you talk a good game (though, Les, surely you can do better than freeports which is a gimmick fed to the bovine masses at brexitcentral and is peashooter compared to the investment needed to close the north-south divide that on some measures is as wide as the one between the old East and West Germany), surely, the UK could secure these benefits with minimal restrictions on its sovereignty. After all, that is the essence of leverage.

    The UK either has leverage or it doesn't and is unable to make it count. Enlighten me lads.
    As I've pointed out several times, Gavyn, times have moved on and the political landscape is totally changed. As you will see, Canada+++ was so Theresa May, Robbins and Tusk.

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/05/the-e...anada-8009257/

    On the face of it, if Canada, Japan and S.Korea can achieve a basic FTA with the EU, then it would be logical that we as the much bigger economy, with whom the EU have a massive trade surplus, should be capable of getting a much better deal. Indeed, having it called Canada +++, or Super Canada, inferred that a better deal was what was on offer. After all, we brought to the table other inducements to a better deal in terms of defence, security and foreign policy cooperation among other things. Now that push has come to shove, it becomes clear that what the EU are prepared to offer is less than Canada/Japan/S.Korea. It would certainly be Canada +++ to them, but to us it is Canada---.

    I note that you're happy to continue quoting government figures suggesting that a Canada style deal has deficiencies for an economy of our size. You ought to realise by now, that we Brexiteers are sceptical about reports from the Civil Service warning about the Armageddon that we face for leaving the EU. We're still laughing at those pre-referendum Treasury forecasts, so please excuse us if we take those sorts of predictions with a pinch of salt. You seem to take them as the gospel truth, so I'm sure that somebody as thorough and clued up as you, must have seen the forecasts provided by the economists to the EU on the impact of them not achieving a trade deal with us. I would imagine that they are pretty dire. What is clear, is that the EU are scared stiff that we will become a major competitor right on their doorstep and that our success will be the impetus needed to have other member states follow us out, this being the reason why the EU is playing silly beggars in their vain attempt to restrict our independence. In retrospect, they must be kicking themselves for not tying down May to the BRINO deal that a remoaner parliament might just have voted through. When it comes to leverage in these negotiations, the EU has cocked it up at every stage since they sent Cameron away empty-handed.

    In the same way that May, Robbins and Tusk are yesterday's people, so is that other remoaner, Ivan Rogers. Today's man is David Frost who has made our position crystal clear in his recent speech. I presume that you read it? It means a basic zero tariff/zero quota or WTO. You continue to insist that we lack leverage in those negotiations, but the biggest lever in any trade deal is the threat to walk away without a deal and to be seen to mean it. I suggest that you wait to hear what our position will be when the government makes its statement on our position on Thursday. The EU have made a list of demands about what will have to be on the table in order that trade talks can commence. I am expecting to hear Johnson and Frost quickly and without any element of doubt, tell the EU to go and get stuffed until they can take the situation and its implications seriously.

  13. #16163

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    P-Tr boundary
    Posts
    3,804

    Default

    Google is moving your data to US where it is easier to monetise, because they can now.
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/0...uk_data_to_us/

  14. #16164

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    As I've pointed out several times, Gavyn, times have moved on and the political landscape is totally changed. As you will see, Canada+++ was so Theresa May, Robbins and Tusk.

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/05/the-e...anada-8009257/

    On the face of it, if Canada, Japan and S.Korea can achieve a basic FTA with the EU, then it would be logical that we as the much bigger economy, with whom the EU have a massive trade surplus, should be capable of getting a much better deal. Indeed, having it called Canada +++, or Super Canada, inferred that a better deal was what was on offer. After all, we brought to the table other inducements to a better deal in terms of defence, security and foreign policy cooperation among other things. Now that push has come to shove, it becomes clear that what the EU are prepared to offer is less than Canada/Japan/S.Korea. It would certainly be Canada +++ to them, but to us it is Canada---.

    I note that you're happy to continue quoting government figures suggesting that a Canada style deal has deficiencies for an economy of our size. You ought to realise by now, that we Brexiteers are sceptical about reports from the Civil Service warning about the Armageddon that we face for leaving the EU. We're still laughing at those pre-referendum Treasury forecasts, so please excuse us if we take those sorts of predictions with a pinch of salt. You seem to take them as the gospel truth, so I'm sure that somebody as thorough and clued up as you, must have seen the forecasts provided by the economists to the EU on the impact of them not achieving a trade deal with us. I would imagine that they are pretty dire. What is clear, is that the EU are scared stiff that we will become a major competitor right on their doorstep and that our success will be the impetus needed to have other member states follow us out, this being the reason why the EU is playing silly beggars in their vain attempt to restrict our independence. In retrospect, they must be kicking themselves for not tying down May to the BRINO deal that a remoaner parliament might just have voted through. When it comes to leverage in these negotiations, the EU has cocked it up at every stage since they sent Cameron away empty-handed.

    In the same way that May, Robbins and Tusk are yesterday's people, so is that other remoaner, Ivan Rogers. Today's man is David Frost who has made our position crystal clear in his recent speech. I presume that you read it? It means a basic zero tariff/zero quota or WTO. You continue to insist that we lack leverage in those negotiations, but the biggest lever in any trade deal is the threat to walk away without a deal and to be seen to mean it. I suggest that you wait to hear what our position will be when the government makes its statement on our position on Thursday. The EU have made a list of demands about what will have to be on the table in order that trade talks can commence. I am expecting to hear Johnson and Frost quickly and without any element of doubt, tell the EU to go and get stuffed until they can take the situation and its implications seriously.
    No Les - Canada +++ was peddled by various sides, including you.

    On one level, it is a meaningless phrase as it can mean different things to different people.

    But conceptually it is still relevant now. It captures the idea that the market access provided by a simple zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA is wholly inadequate for the UK’s needs - the pluses signifying better access than such a FTA. Please educate yourself on how international trade works in the 21st century, if you think otherwise.

    The limitations of zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA are indeed recognised by the current government - hence why it is pushing for permanent equivalence for financial services. Raab has spoken about no new regulatory checks which would otherwise be necessary under a zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA. Thoughts?

    We all know that May and Robbins were willing to give up some sovereignty for improved market access and that trade-off appears dead as dodo under the new Johnson administration. At the same time, the current government is so confident -as you are- in its negotiating abilities and leverage that it should be able to secure much better market access than that implied by a zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA without having to make the same concessions that May and Robbins were willing to consider.

    So I’ll ask you again what additional market access will we able to secure with our much vaunted leverage?
    Last edited by shurlock; 24-02-2020 at 11:00 AM.

  15. #16165

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sunny Shirley
    Posts
    2,021

    Default

    Good to see that our wonderful new blue British Passports are produced by a German/Dutch company who print them in Poland.

    https://newsthump.com/2020/02/24/all...ts-government/

  16. #16166

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Having humiliatingly signed up to something that he had vouched he would never accept, Johnson and his government could renege on the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement/Northern Ireland protocol. Supposedly Geoffrey Cox was given the boot because he refused to take part in plans to “get around” it (story initially from the Times behind a paywall). That follows the sacking of the excellent Julian Smith which showed the Government and Brexiters at their ideological worst and most incompetent.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...with-us-and-eu
    Last edited by shurlock; 24-02-2020 at 11:08 AM.

  17. #16167

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    Having humiliatingly signed up to something that he had vouched he would never accept, Johnson and his government could renege on the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement/Northern Ireland protocol. Supposedly Geoffrey Cox was given the boot because he refused to take part in plans to “get around” it (story initially from the Times behind a paywall). That follows the sacking of the excellent Julian Smith which showed the Government and Brexiters at their ideological worst and most incompetent.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...with-us-and-eu
    Congratulations on accepting that an article based on "reports" just has to be the gospel truth. I'm sure that you also lapped up all the conjecture from so-called experts about what the implications of us "reneging" on our legal obligations over the Irish border would be, and the conspiracy theory about why Geoffrey Cox was replaced by Suella Braverman. There is a great deal of mischief going on within the Civil Service at the moment along similar lines of leaks designed to put a bad gloss on the government. Just within the past few days, there have been stories published in the media that Priti Patel bullies her Civil Servants and that she is not trusted to be given security information by our spymasters. Also that Sir Mark Sedwell, the head of the Civil Service, had taken it upon himself to decide that we could not go for our own Global Navigation Satellite System and he had therefore decided that we should go for latching on to some other cheaper option, probably Galileo. Apparently Boris was very angry, demanding to know why he wasn't informed about this decision, to be told by Sedwell that he had intended to tell him after the meeting.

    About time that Sedwell and his like were put out to grass and replaced by those who accept that it is the government's place to decide policy and the Civil Servants place to implement it, not the other way around.

  18. #16168

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    replaced by those who accept that it is the government's place to decide policy and the Civil Servants place to implement it, not the other way around.
    What if the minister's policy would breach legal obligations if implemented?

  19. #16169

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    12,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    What if the minister's policy would breach legal obligations if implemented?
    It won't matter once the review of the relationship between Parliament and the Courts is concluded.

  20. #16170

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    It won't matter once the review of the relationship between Parliament and the Courts is concluded.
    The ultimate result of that is that Parliament passes laws and international agreements made but they aren't enforced or complied with on the whim of the Executive. Decision making is so much quicker and easier, only drawback is that you become an unreliable authoritarian pariah state.

    Ps. Before the mouth breathers start, I'm not suggesting we're there. But its a dangerous slope to begin to go down.

  21. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecuk268 View Post
    Good to see that our wonderful new blue British Passports are produced by a German/Dutch company who print them in Poland.

    https://newsthump.com/2020/02/24/all...ts-government/
    Excellent isn't it. We can choose the best value wherever in the world it is.

  22. #16172

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Medals, Trophy Lallana can also earn at Southampton- Andy Durman 16/05/14
    Posts
    31,068
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    The ultimate result of that is that Parliament passes laws and international agreements made but they aren't enforced or complied with on the whim of the Executive. Decision making is so much quicker and easier, only drawback is that you become an unreliable authoritarian pariah state.

    Ps. Before the mouth breathers start, I'm not suggesting we're there. But its a dangerous slope to begin to go down.
    That's just scaremongering. No evidence of that at all so far.

  23. #16173

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    No Les - Canada +++ was peddled by various sides, including you.

    On one level, it is a meaningless phrase as it can mean different things to different people.

    But conceptually it is still relevant now. It captures the idea that the market access provided by a simple zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA is wholly inadequate for the UK’s needs - the pluses signifying better access than such a FTA. Please educate yourself on how international trade works in the 21st century, if you think otherwise.

    The limitations of zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA are indeed recognised by the current government - hence why it is pushing for permanent equivalence for financial services. Raab has spoken about no new regulatory checks which would otherwise be necessary under a zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA. Thoughts?

    We all know that May and Robbins were willing to give up some sovereignty for improved market access and that trade-off appears dead as dodo under the new Johnson administration. At the same time, the current government is so confident -as you are- in its negotiating abilities and leverage that it should be able to secure much better market access than that implied by a zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA without having to make the same concessions that May and Robbins were willing to consider.

    So I’ll ask you again what additional market access will we able to secure with our much vaunted leverage?
    Canada +++ appeared to be a better deal than the straight Canada deal, on the basis that we were a considerably bigger economy with more to offer in terms of security, defence and foreign policy cooperation among other things, so that our expectations for a better deal were naturally higher, as I said. But as you say, until it became clear that what the EU meant by it was not what we thought it to mean, it was a meaningless phrase meaning many things to different people. Despite it being a meaningless phrase, you amusingly go on to argue that it is still currently relevant and that a simple FTA without the +++s is totally inadequate for our purposes. As it was a meaningless phrase, that excuses anybody who was misled by it when May was making a complete horlicks of the negotiations, so please stop harping on about it; it is ancient history. The addition of +++s for improved trade access in return for sovereignty ain't going to happen.

    As usual, the implied insult is that if anybody disagrees with you, they simply don't understand how international trade works in the 21st century, and yet here we are having left the EU and as a third country facing the possibility that we might subsequently not even have a FTA with the EU. No doubt the same applied to those who voted to leave the EU, they were just too thick to understand the implications of going it alone in the big bad world. Except of course we won't be going it alone, as we will set up FTAs with other enterprising and developing countries around the world, whilst still retaining a large chunk of trade with the EU member states no matter what, as they will want to maintain their huge surplus with us.

    I'm pleased that you accept that we are no longer prepared to give up some sovereignty in return for improved market access now that May and Robbins have gone. Where did Boris say that he expected more trade access as a result of our strong position? As far as I can see, he has issued red lines stating that we do not accept regulatory alignment with the EU and that we would accept a simple FTA like Canada/Japan/S/Korea. I have to keep telling you, that we are discussing what our trade negotiation stance will be on Tuesday, and announcing it on Thursday. Much as you enjoy speculation and conjecture, please show some patience. All will become clear by then.

  24. #16174

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nolan View Post
    Excellent isn't it. We can choose the best value wherever in the world it is.
    De La Rue cut 179 jobs in Gateshead after losing the passport contract. Weren't you one of those up in arms about jobs shifting overseas because of EU policy? But it's okay if Boris the Brave does it?

  25. #16175

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    Canada +++ appeared to be a better deal than the straight Canada deal, on the basis that we were a considerably bigger economy with more to offer in terms of security, defence and foreign policy cooperation among other things, so that our expectations for a better deal were naturally higher, as I said. But as you say, until it became clear that what the EU meant by it was not what we thought it to mean, it was a meaningless phrase meaning many things to different people. Despite it being a meaningless phrase, you amusingly go on to argue that it is still currently relevant and that a simple FTA without the +++s is totally inadequate for our purposes. As it was a meaningless phrase, that excuses anybody who was misled by it when May was making a complete horlicks of the negotiations, so please stop harping on about it; it is ancient history. The addition of +++s for improved trade access in return for sovereignty ain't going to happen.

    As usual, the implied insult is that if anybody disagrees with you, they simply don't understand how international trade works in the 21st century, and yet here we are having left the EU and as a third country facing the possibility that we might subsequently not even have a FTA with the EU. No doubt the same applied to those who voted to leave the EU, they were just too thick to understand the implications of going it alone in the big bad world. Except of course we won't be going it alone, as we will set up FTAs with other enterprising and developing countries around the world, whilst still retaining a large chunk of trade with the EU member states no matter what, as they will want to maintain their huge surplus with us.

    I'm pleased that you accept that we are no longer prepared to give up some sovereignty in return for improved market access now that May and Robbins have gone. Where did Boris say that he expected more trade access as a result of our strong position? As far as I can see, he has issued red lines stating that we do not accept regulatory alignment with the EU and that we would accept a simple FTA like Canada/Japan/S/Korea. I have to keep telling you, that we are discussing what our trade negotiation stance will be on Tuesday, and announcing it on Thursday. Much as you enjoy speculation and conjecture, please show some patience. All will become clear by then.
    Still not answering the question then. How will the UK use its much vaunted leverage? Will the UK government be able to use it to secure permanent equivalence as it is currently demanding? Finally what is your reading of the general economic literature on the impacts and benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK wishes to strike with countries around the world? Note that this assessment has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as you wrongly imply. Take your blinkers off, it’s simply about the source and magnitude of trade frictions in a global economy where average tariffs are already very low.
    Last edited by shurlock; 24-02-2020 at 01:18 PM.

  26. #16176

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    What if the minister's policy would breach legal obligations if implemented?
    I mentioned this is the case of Sir Mark Sedwell, the Head of the Civil Service. Is having our own GNSS illegal? Is it right that he should take the decision to ignore government wishes to explore the possibility of having our own system and decide himself whether it is viable or not?

  27. #16177

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    Still not answering the question then.
    Do I have to repeat myself yet again? It will become clear on Thursday what we expect our leverage to be. Personally I would be happy if our negotiating leverage was to walk away from the talks and tell the EU that we will reopen them when they had come to their senses and were prepared to listen to what they were told by Frost in his speech last week. I'm entirely happy with WTO myself, so I don't know why you insist on your stuck record questioning.

  28. #16178

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    I mentioned this is the case of Sir Mark Sedwell, the Head of the Civil Service. Is having our own GNSS illegal? Is it right that he should take the decision to ignore government wishes to explore the possibility of having our own system and decide himself whether it is viable or not?
    You don't know whether he did or not, and nor do I. If he did I agree that's wrong. Given his long track record working successfully with many different ministers, I doubt that is what happened. I suspect it has more to do with Sedwell refusing, rightly, to authorise the release of a Treasury costing of Labours manifesto promises because it would have compromised civil service impartiality during an election campaign.

  29. #16179

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    De La Rue cut 179 jobs in Gateshead after losing the passport contract. Weren't you one of those up in arms about jobs shifting overseas because of EU policy? But it's okay if Boris the Brave does it?
    I'm sure that you're bright enough to realise that the award of the contract to the French printers was due to the EU procurement rules which we were obliged to follow at that time. Had we been more devious about it, as the French often are, we could have used some cock and bull excuse that farming out the passports to an external country was potentially a security risk, but unfortunately the vicar's daughter didn't have the gumption to take such a course. But now we are free from the procurement rules, we can give these contacts to British firms if we deem it expedient.

  30. #16180

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    Do I have to repeat myself yet again? It will become clear on Thursday what we expect our leverage to be. Personally I would be happy if our negotiating leverage was to walk away from the talks and tell the EU that we will reopen them when they had come to their senses and were prepared to listen to what they were told by Frost in his speech last week. I'm entirely happy with WTO myself, so I don't know why you insist on your stuck record questioning.
    I’m asking you - over hundreds of pages, you and fellow Brexiters have repeatedly played up our bargaining power - you mentioned the massive trade surplus in goods the EU enjoys and the fact we’re now ready to walk away if necessary in your last few posts, so must have some views on how we can make these ‘advantages’ count and what they can get us in return?

    And what is your reading on the economic impact of nontariff, nonquota FTAs? You dismiss my view, so you must have some basis for that confidence. As I say, this has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as presumably the UK will be signing similar FTAs with other countries around the world.
    Last edited by shurlock; 24-02-2020 at 01:38 PM.

  31. #16181

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    You don't know whether he did or not, and nor do I. If he did I agree that's wrong. Given his long track record working successfully with many different ministers, I doubt that is what happened. I suspect it has more to do with Sedwell refusing, rightly, to authorise the release of a Treasury costing of Labours manifesto promises because it would have compromised civil service impartiality during an election campaign.
    The treasury costing of Labour's manifesto promises? What are you going on about? I'm talking about the apparent decision by Sedwell that we shouldn't proceed with our own Satellite system, now that the EU cut us out of Galileo in a fit of pique because we voted to leave the EU. It seems he decided himself that it wasn't economically sound and that we should go for an inferior cheapie alternative. Boris was livid that Sedwell had taken this decision upon himself and he only fund out about it subsequently.

  32. #16182

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    I'm sure that you're bright enough to realise that the award of the contract to the French printers was due to the EU procurement rules which we were obliged to follow at that time. Had we been more devious about it, as the French often are, we could have used some cock and bull excuse that farming out the passports to an external country was potentially a security risk, but unfortunately the vicar's daughter didn't have the gumption to take such a course. But now we are free from the procurement rules, we can give these contacts to British firms if we deem it expedient.
    Meh. That was just the fig leaf. Most other countries in the EU keep production in-house on national security grounds - which is a perfectly valid exemption. May chose not to do it - but that is a British problem made in Britain. Even Brexit central, the Daily Express acknowledged it.
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...rinting-brexit

  33. #16183

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    I’m asking you - over hundreds of pages, you and fellow Brexiters have repeatedly played up our bargaining power - you mentioned the massive trade surplus in goods the EU enjoys and the fact we’re now ready to walk away if necessary in your last few posts, so must have some views on how we can make these ‘advantages’ count and what they can get us?

    And what is your reading on the economic impact of nontariff, nonquota FTAs? You dismiss my view, so you must have some basis for that confidence. As I say, this has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as presumably the UK will be signinh similar FTAs with other countries.
    The apposite phrase was used by somebody else recently, "it takes two to tango". I'll also jump in and say "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". I'm sure that there are many others which illustrate the situation. I'm sure that you're bright enough to recognise the EU's dilemma, torn as they are between being sensible about arriving at a free trade agreement that is in the mutual interests of both parties and the EU's desire to keep us as closely tied to them against our will to prevent us thriving outside the EU, encouraging others to follow us out. To use another pertinent phrase, they are between a rock and a hard place. None of this has anything remotely to do with Brexit, does it?

    Surely I have stated my position often enough that some of it must have penetrated. For me it is far more about sovereignty than economics. I can't be more happy that finally after all these years we out of the EU and I'm totally laid back about whether we get a basic FTA or whether it is WTO. After a short period of enduring a few economic bumps along the way until we begin to see the fruits of expanding our trade with the rest of the world, we will thrive outside of the EU, whereas they will continue to decline as a force in world trade. As an arch remoaner, I understand why you should be so keen to only see the negative side of our position, but as I suggested earlier, a person of your eminence economically must also have seen forecasts about the EU's economic forecasts in the event of a basic FTA or indeed us leaving on WTO terms. I expect that it makes for really dire reading, doesn't it? Now all you have to acknowledge, is that those economic repercussions are leverage for the EU to be more sensible in the negotiations, although their track record since Boris arrived has not been great.

  34. #16184

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    Meh. That was just the fig leaf. Most other countries in the EU keep production in-house on national security grounds - which is a perfectly valid exemption. May chose not to do it - but that is a British problem made in Britain. Even Brexit central, the Daily Express acknowledged it.
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...rinting-brexit
    As I freely admit, May was totally and utterly useless, the worst PM we have ever had by some distance. But we have to be eternally grateful to her for bringing about the situation through her massive incompetence whereby she was ejected as leader by the party and replaced by Boris, who managed to get the WA over the line and then fool the girl Swinson into agreeing to the GE which changed the political landscape for the next five years, probably even ten years. So I view May with some affection.

  35. #16185

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    The apposite phrase was used by somebody else recently, "it takes two to tango". I'll also jump in and say "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". I'm sure that there are many others which illustrate the situation. I'm sure that you're bright enough to recognise the EU's dilemma, torn as they are between being sensible about arriving at a free trade agreement that is in the mutual interests of both parties and the EU's desire to keep us as closely tied to them against our will to prevent us thriving outside the EU, encouraging others to follow us out. To use another pertinent phrase, they are between a rock and a hard place. None of this has anything remotely to do with Brexit, does it?

    Surely I have stated my position often enough that some of it must have penetrated. For me it is far more about sovereignty than economics. I can't be more happy that finally after all these years we out of the EU and I'm totally laid back about whether we get a basic FTA or whether it is WTO. After a short period of enduring a few economic bumps along the way until we begin to see the fruits of expanding our trade with the rest of the world, we will thrive outside of the EU, whereas they will continue to decline as a force in world trade. As an arch remoaner, I understand why you should be so keen to only see the negative side of our position, but as I suggested earlier, a person of your eminence economically must also have seen forecasts about the EU's economic forecasts in the event of a basic FTA or indeed us leaving on WTO terms. I expect that it makes for really dire reading, doesn't it? Now all you have to acknowledge, is that those economic repercussions are leverage for the EU to be more sensible in the negotiations, although their track record since Boris arrived has not been great.
    How far we've come in a few short years. From 'We can name our terms' to 'Yes we'll be poorer but it will be our decision to be poorer'

  36. #16186

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    How far we've come in a few short years. From 'We can name our terms' to 'Yes we'll be poorer but it will be our decision to be poorer'
    Indeed, how far we've come from the Norway option to Canada or WTO, eh?

    Please do read a bit more carefully taking everything in context. My position has always been that we would likely suffer a short economic reversal whilst adjustments were made, but that once past those, we would thrive. I'm sure that you will be happy to show me where I have said anything different, without that caveat. Going back historically of course, much the same was said about how we would suffer if we didn't join the ERM at the time. History will judge the expediency of our actions, but the time to assess how we have fared through this process will be about five years down the road.

  37. #16187

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    The apposite phrase was used by somebody else recently, "it takes two to tango". I'll also jump in and say "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". I'm sure that there are many others which illustrate the situation. I'm sure that you're bright enough to recognise the EU's dilemma, torn as they are between being sensible about arriving at a free trade agreement that is in the mutual interests of both parties and the EU's desire to keep us as closely tied to them against our will to prevent us thriving outside the EU, encouraging others to follow us out. To use another pertinent phrase, they are between a rock and a hard place. None of this has anything remotely to do with Brexit, does it?

    Surely I have stated my position often enough that some of it must have penetrated. For me it is far more about sovereignty than economics. I can't be more happy that finally after all these years we out of the EU and I'm totally laid back about whether we get a basic FTA or whether it is WTO. After a short period of enduring a few economic bumps along the way until we begin to see the fruits of expanding our trade with the rest of the world, we will thrive outside of the EU, whereas they will continue to decline as a force in world trade. As an arch remoaner, I understand why you should be so keen to only see the negative side of our position, but as I suggested earlier, a person of your eminence economically must also have seen forecasts about the EU's economic forecasts in the event of a basic FTA or indeed us leaving on WTO terms. I expect that it makes for really dire reading, doesn't it? Now all you have to acknowledge, is that those economic repercussions are leverage for the EU to be more sensible in the negotiations, although their track record since Boris arrived has not been great.
    So no answers then and hardly ringing endorsement of the UK’s leverage in these negotiations. Guess talk is cheap. I asked you specifically about the benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK hopes to to strike not only with the EU but with other countries.
    Last edited by shurlock; 24-02-2020 at 02:54 PM.

  38. #16188

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    12,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    ....My position has always been that we would likely suffer a short economic reversal whilst adjustments were made, but that once past those, we would thrive.
    So we are back to JRM's "...I may not know for years whether it has been better or worse" and "The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next fifty years" ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My4UM_zCpk0

  39. #16189

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    So no answers then and hardly ringing endorsement of the UK’s leverage in these negotiations. Guess talk is cheap. I asked you specifically about the benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK hopes to to strike not only with the EU but with other countries.
    If you think that I am going to write you an essay on the benefits and disadvantages of FTA agreements then you can go and get lost. I'm sure that you know exactly what they are, although of course you will interpret them from a remoaner stance, so that some things might be disadvantages to remoaners which are in the other column from a Brexit perspective. But as I say, I can't be arsed to indulge you any further when you are like a dog with a bone. As I continue to say, wait until Thursday to see what our negotiating stance will be.

  40. #16190

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    So we are back to JRM's "...I may not know for years whether it has been better or worse" and "The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next fifty years" ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My4UM_zCpk0
    So you are back to that video from JRM, who said that the overwhelming opportunity of Brexit will be felt over the next 50 years and all the half-wits took it to mean that it would take 50 years for the benefits of leaving the EU to be felt. Which group are you in? You worded it correctly, but did you take the half-wit's meaning of it?

  41. #16191

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    12,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    So you are back to that video from JRM, who said that the overwhelming opportunity of Brexit will be felt over the next 50 years and all the half-wits took it to mean that it would take 50 years for the benefits of leaving the EU to be felt. Which group are you in? You worded it correctly, but did you take the half-wit's meaning of it?
    I am in possession of all my wits, do you have a full set ?
    What is your view of the first JRM quote ? What is the chance that some years down the line things will be shown to be worse ?

  42. #16192

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    If you think that I am going to write you an essay on the benefits and disadvantages of FTA agreements then you can go and get lost. I'm sure that you know exactly what they are, although of course you will interpret them from a remoaner stance, so that some things might be disadvantages to remoaners which are in the other column from a Brexit perspective. But as I say, I can't be arsed to indulge you any further when you are like a dog with a bone. As I continue to say, wait until Thursday to see what our negotiating stance will be.
    Perhaps the Telegraph should write an essay on their costs and benefits - if it did, it might be able to tell it’s arse from its elbow instead of pumping out falsehoods lapped up by its swivel-eyed readership. Do you read the DT Les?

    This correction from today:


  43. #16193

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Super Weston Mare
    Posts
    12,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    Little did I know when the thread’s dimmest poster talked about the negotiating difficulties of meeting “the expectations of 27 countries - each with their own different agenda” and some analogy about them having too many fingers in too many pies, he was actually including the UK. Everything my colleagues and I previously and professionally understood about the EU (including the UK) being composed of 28 member states was dead wrong. Turns out the UK was part of the EU27. I learn something new everyday on this place, including how not to cover my tracks and make up a bigger fool of myself

    This literally my final post on the issue as I can positively feel my IQ declining every minute I’m engaging with such disingenuous simpletons.
    He's having a 'mare!

    You're all over the place, pal.

    It's a pretty basic assumption that the '27' countries comprise the EU without the UK and that the UK was the 28th member. Yet, we were talking about an agreement to the terms by which the UK would leave. No-one in their right mind would group the UK with the other 27 countries in that context, excepet you when it suits your agenda to throw more petty insults.

    So tell us, oh magnificient one, what is this deal that is 'diammetrically opposed' to a 'no deal' that you mentioned - surely you can let us know the details, unless of course you made it up to try and be all superior, that wouldn't be like you at all.....

  44. #16194

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    I am in possession of all my wits, do you have a full set ?
    What is your view of the first JRM quote ? What is the chance that some years down the line things will be shown to be worse ?
    What are you taking as the first JRM quote? Basically I agreed with all JRM had to say and my opinion of the interviewer was that he was a bit of an idiot. He asked whether JRM was prepared to resign if things went wrong over Brexit, when of course JRM was nothing but a back bench MP at the time. Perhaps the idiot journo meant that he should consider resigning from the Chairmanship of the European Research Group, where everybody was largely of the same opinion, so that perhaps they should all resign at once. Of course there is always a chance that things will be worse some time down the road, but I very much doubt it.

  45. #16195

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    Perhaps the Telegraph should write an essay on their costs and benefits - if it did, it might be able to tell it’s arse from its elbow instead of pumping out falsehoods lapped up by its swivel-eyed readership. Do you read the DT Les?

    This correction from today:

    This seems akin to the Treasury forecasts which concentrated on all the downsides of the worst case scenario of Brexit, whilst ignoring any upside. The Telegraph has apologised for their error, but I don't think that the remoaner Treasury has admitted yet that they deliberately stilted the statistics to show Brexit in the worst possible light. What was it? Each household to be £4300 a year worse off? As an economist, you've never been wrong before, have you Gavyn? Where were you on the ERM?

  46. #16196

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    This seems akin to the Treasury forecasts which concentrated on all the downsides of the worst case scenario of Brexit, whilst ignoring any upside. The Telegraph has apologised for their error, but I don't think that the remoaner Treasury has admitted yet that they deliberately stilted the statistics to show Brexit in the worst possible light. What was it? Each household to be £4300 a year worse off? As an economist, you've never been wrong before, have you Gavyn? Where were you on the ERM?
    "Using a negotiated bilateral agreement like Canada as the central assumption for the alternative, Britain would be worse off by the equivalent of £1,800 every year for every man, woman and child in Britain after 15 years, and overall GDP would be lower by 6.2%. Other options being proposed would be worse still."

    "There would also be a significant hit to tax receipts, equivalent to an 8p increase in the rate of income tax"

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/h...-4300-per-year

    You lied Wes. Or to be charitable, you are confused again.
    Last edited by buctootim; 25-02-2020 at 08:30 AM.

  47. #16197

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    18,145

    Default

    The sunny uplands of lower income and higher tax.

    Control!

    Result!


  48. #16198

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    This seems akin to the Treasury forecasts which concentrated on all the downsides of the worst case scenario of Brexit, whilst ignoring any upside. The Telegraph has apologised for their error, but I don't think that the remoaner Treasury has admitted yet that they deliberately stilted the statistics to show Brexit in the worst possible light. What was it? Each household to be £4300 a year worse off? As an economist, you've never been wrong before, have you Gavyn? Where were you on the ERM?
    They’re different types of error Les: one is a prediction that turned out to be wrong; the other is a claim that involved elements that were objectively and factually wrong at the time it was made e.g. import tariffs are never ever levied on retail prices which was the basis of the IEA/DT’s calculation.

  49. #16199

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    "Using a negotiated bilateral agreement like Canada as the central assumption for the alternative, Britain would be worse off by the equivalent of £1,800 every year for every man, woman and child in Britain after 15 years, and overall GDP would be lower by 6.2%. Other options being proposed would be worse still."

    "There would also be a significant hit to tax receipts, equivalent to an 8p increase in the rate of income tax"

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/h...-4300-per-year

    You lied Wes. Or to be charitable, you are confused again.
    I think that it is you who is confused, Timmy, or maybe you just misread what I had written. I never provided any link to the Treasury report, but I thank you for providing evidence showing that my figures were correct. It says that every family would be worse off financially to the tune of £4300 if we voted to leave the EU. I didn't go into specifics as to what the figures would be under different outcomes, as at that time before the referendum it was unclear about what the outcome would be. Your link was published 2 months before the referendum took place and you were espousing the Norway option, so I am not about to accept being called confused by you, Timmy. As I said, it was widely accepted that the Treasury figures were project fear writ large to show the remoaner worst case scenario.

  50. #16200

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Tell us what you really think Frostie:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-a-great-trad/


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •